DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 01st day of June, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya.A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K.,Member
Date of filing:26/05/2020
CC/51/2020
Hisham Abdulla.K - Complainant
S/o Abdu.K
Kolassery House,Manaladi,
Mannarkkad-678 582.
(Party in person)
Vs
1.Regional Head & Vice President
Federal Bank - Opposite Parties
Palakkad-678 013.
2. Branch Manager,
Federal Bank,
Mannarkkad-678 582.
3. Assistant Manager,
Federal Bank,
Mannarkkad- 678 582.
(By Adv.T.Reena)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A., Member
1.Brief facts of the complaint.
As per the complaint, the complainant’s venture was selected under the PMEGP(Pradhan Mantri Employment Generation Programme) scheme for generating new employments as well as starting new ventures conducted in the District Industries centre on 18/01/2018 . He approached various Nationalised Banks in Mannarkkad for availing loan under the PMEGP Scheme and the Branch Manager of Federal Bank Mannarkkad consented to grant him the loan. Based on his assurance, the complainant participated in the Enterpreneurship Development Programme which is a training programme for the participants of the scheme. Later on, the Bank Manager withdrew from his promise and as a result, he lost the opportunity to become an entrepreneur. All these happened because of the deficiency in service on the part of the Manager. Believing the undertaking held out by him, the complainant did not approach other Banks for availing loan.
Later he contacted the Regional Branch of Federal Bank and the Regional Head promised to reconsider the matter. On 03/10/2018, the Lead District Manager informed him that even though his project was reconsidered, it was rejected. Again on 07/01/2019, the opposite party informed that the loan application which was rejected was reconsidered and asked him to submit necessary documents for processing it. But even after submitting the required documents there was no response from the part of the Bank and so he went abroad for employment. On April 2019, the opposite party manager informed him through telephone that his loan is sanctioned and asked him to contact the branch office immediately. Based on their assurance he came back to India on a week’s leave. But the opposite parties informed him that the building(room) in which the complainant was proposing to start his project lacks facility and asked him to find out another room with required facilities. Even though he found out another place and applied for license, the opposite parties did not sanction the loan as agreed. Because of his long leave for arranging the facilities required by the Bank, he lost his job abroad and came back to India on February 25, 2020. All these happened because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So he filed this complaint to get a compensation totalling to Rs.17,45,000/- under different heads from the opposite parties.
2. Complaint was admitted and notice issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The main contentions raised by the opposite parties in their version.
The complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The Bank has not collected any amount from the complainant as service charge or cost nor any consideration has been passed for the purpose of hiring any service nor has any promise been made for availing any such services by the opposite parties.
The complainant had submitted the proposal under PMEGP for meeting working capital requirements related to tailoring and sale of garments on 28/02/2018 and the said proposal, when sent to the competent authority, was rejected on 12/03/2018 and it was duly communicated to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant approached the Lead Bank with a complaint for getting the loan sanctioned. Based on the assurance given by the complainant, the competent authority had sanctioned the loan amounting to Rs.5 Lakhs on 19/02/2019 and called for to avail the facility within a period of 3 months after complying with all the pre- disbursal conditions and necessary infrastructure facility to carry out the activity.
The loan facility was not availed by the complainant within the prescribed time limit as he went abroad for his personal requirements and the sanction of the facility got expired on 19/05/2019. The sanction order dated 27/05/2019 containing the terms and conditions of the facility sanction dated 19/02/2019 was accepted by the complaint only on 28/05/2019 as he was not available in India during February. The opposite parties decided to revalidate the sanction of the facility for helping the complainant. But on verification of the infrastructural facility arranged for the functioning of the unit, it was found that a hair dressing saloon was functioning in the building where the complainant was proposing to start the unit. On enquiry, the complainant stated that the said building was owned by his father and soon the tenants would vacate from the premises. The complainant was asked to take necessary steps to get the room vacated or to arrange alternate building.
The proposal for revalidation of the sanction made by the opposite parties was approved on 04/07/2019 and it was revalidated for a period of 3 months from 19/05/2019 to 19/08/2019. Since there was no follow up from the complainant with regard to the proposal after the revalidation, the complainant was informed about the necessity of availing the facility before the expiry date through registered notice on 18/07/2019. As the complainant was not responding, the opposite parties made necessary enquiries and it was found that the complaint had gone abroad.
So the facility sanctioned once was cancelled due to its non- availing and the sanction got revalidated for another 3 months on complainant’s request and as there was no positive movement from the complainant, it got cancelled again. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. There is no cause of action against the opposite parties and the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and has to be dismissed with cost to these opposite parties.
4. Complainant filed chief affidavit along with some documents on 16/09/2020. After that the complainant was continuously absent. Because of the disarrayed and unsystematic manner in which the documents of the complainant are produced and considering the fact that he has not taken any steps to assist the Commission, his evidence is rejected and the documents are not marked. Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and Exhibits B1 to B6 where marked from their side and opposite parties filed notes of arguments. Evidence closed and it was taken for orders based on merits.
5. Main issues for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service/Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite parties ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
3. Reliefs as to cost and compensation
Issues 1, 2 & 3
6. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant had submitted the proposal under PMEGP for meeting the working capital requirement for starting his new Entrepreneurial venture under the above mentioned scheme on 28/02/2018. They further contended that the said proposal, when sent to the competent authority at Kozhikkode, was rejected on 12/03/2018 which was intimated to the complainant on time.
7. The opposite parties stated that later on the complainant approached the Lead Bank with a complaint for getting the loan sanctioned and subsequently the proposal was taken up by the authority for a reconsideration based on the follow up from the complainant.
8. The opposite parties contended that based on the assurance given by the complainant , the competent authority sanctioned the facility on 19/02/2019 for Rs.5 Lakhs(Rs.4 Lakhs Term Loan and Rs.1 Lakh working capital) and called for to avail the facility within a period of 3 months after complying with all the pre-disbursal conditions and necessary infrastructural facility to carry out the activity.
The opposite parties have produced the documents showing the information regarding the sanctioning of the credit facility to the complainant which is marked as Ext B1. Ext B1 informs the complainant about the facility sanctioned on 19/02/2019.
The Condition No.1 given along with the Repayment schedule forming part of Ext B1 specifically mentions that the sanction order is valid for a period of 3 months only from the date of sanction. Subsequently, the Bank reserves the right to decide on re-validation.
2nd condition states that “All the required permit/approvals such as license/permission/sanction from local/competent authority/Industries Dept/Controller of Explosives, Clearance from Pollution Control Board/ Registration from Sales Tax & Excise Duty Authorities, etc.(wherever applicable) are to be submitted.”
3rd condition states that “The facilities will disbursed only after conducting the unit visit and confirming that the unit is ready for commissioning and all infrastructural facilities are available at the site.”
9. As per the opposite parties’ contention, the loan which was sanctioned on 19/02/2019 was not availed by the complainant within the prescribed period of 3 months as he went abroad and it expired on 19/05/2019. The complainant visited the branch on 28/05/2019 and asked for the disbursal of the amount.
Ext B2 dated 28/05/2019 is the written request from the complainant to the opposite party which states that he could not avail the loan sanctioned on February 2019, as he could not find out sufficient working capital needed for his project at that time and presently he is ready to avail the loan facility. Ext B3 dated 19/06/2019 also shows the reason for non availing of the loan amount within the prescribed time and the complainant’s willingness to continue with the project. Ext B4 also contains the request to the opposite parties not to cancel the CGTMSC scheme as he could not avail the loan in time as he was abroad for business purpose.
10. From Exts B2, B3 & B4 it appears that the loan which was sanctioned on 19/02/2019 was not availed by the complainant in time because during that period he was abroad for his personel requirements and for that opposite party cannot be blamed.
11. Opposite parties, in their affidavit stated that based on complainant’s request, they decided to revalidate the sanction facility. They conducted a pre-disbursal verification of the infrastructural facility arranged for the functioning of the unit and found that a hair dressing saloon was functioning in the building where the complainant was proposing to start the unit. They asked him to take steps to get the room vacated or to arrange an alternate building. By that time, sanction of the facility got expired on 19/05/2019.
But based on the complainant’s request, sanction of the facility was revalidated till 19/08/2019 as a special case and it was communicated to the complainant through a Registered letter dated 18/07/2019 and requested the complainant to avail that facility within the prescribed time.
12. Exts B4 & B5 substantiate their contentions. Complainant himself admits that he could not avail the loan facility approved to him because he was abroad for employment. So the opposite party is not responsible for the non availing of the facility by the complainant. Even though they have extended the time for a further period of 3 months, complainant failed to avail it.
13. Opposite parties further contended that since the complainant was not responding to the communication, they made personal enquiries at his residential address and it was found that he had gone abroad.
So the contention of the opposite parties that the facility sanctioned was once cancelled due to non availment by the complainant and the revalidated sanction was again got cancelled as there was no positive movement from the complainant’s part appears to be correct from the documents which were marked as Ext B1 to B6.
So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties .
In the result the complaint stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties have to bear their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 01st day of June, 2022
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty.N.K
Member
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext B1- Copy of sanction order dated 27/05/2019.
Ext B2- Copy of letter dated 28/05/2019 forwarded to the bank by the complainant.
Ext B3-Copy of letter dated 19/06/2019 forwarded to the bank by the complainant.
Ext B4- Copy of letter dated 29/06/2019 forwarded to the bank by the complainant.
Ext B5- Copy of Registered letter dated 18/07/2019 issued to the complainant by the
bank with postal receipt.
Ext B6- Copy of letter dated 11/03/2020 issued to the complainant by the bank.
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: NIL
Forwarded/By Order,
Assistant Registrar
Fair copy on : 23/06/2022.
Despatched on:
